430 F. App'x 453
6th Cir.2011Background
- MacDonald worked for UPS for over 34 years as a truck driver and was repeatedly recognized for safe driving.
- After a January 2005 head injury, MacDonald claimed memory problems and sought accommodations; UPS disputed the impairment.
- Starting in 2005–2006, UPS subjected MacDonald to on-the-spot safety quizzes and Central Sort duties allegedly inconsistent with prior practice.
- In late 2006–early 2007, MacDonald was disciplined and ultimately terminated for alleged insubordination; he was replaced by a younger employee under a collective bargaining agreement.
- MacDonald filed state-law whistleblower and disability claims, later removed to federal court; the district court granted summary judgment for UPS on all claims except retaliation, which it also resolved against MacDonald.
- On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court on the retaliation claim but affirmed on age discrimination, disability discrimination, and whistleblower claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MacDonald proved age discrimination | MacDonald asserts prima facie case and pretext evidence. | UPS argues replacement by a younger employee under a CBA does not imply discrimination. | No genuine issue; no inference of age discrimination. |
| Whether MacDonald proved disability discrimination under PWDCRA | Memory problems substantially limit thinking; he is disabled or regarded as disabled. | MacDonald failed to show substantial limitation or that UPS regarded him as disabled. | Summary judgment affirmed; no disability under PWDCRA. |
| Whether MacDonald engaged in protected activity and causation for retaliation | Grievances and memory-related complaints were protected activity; temporal and causal links exist. | Protected activity lacking or not causally connected to discipline; evidence insufficient for retaliation. | Summary judgment reversed; record shows protected activity and causal connection with pretext evidence. |
| Whether MacDonald’s WPA whistleblower claim survives | Call to police over a disputed property issue could be a public-spirited disclosure. | Action lacked altruistic public-interest motive; private dispute rather than whistleblowing. | WPA claim rejected; no good-faith public-interest motivation shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes the burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Lytle v. Malady, --) (Mich. 1997) (circumstances and inference of discrimination in prima facie case)
- Hazle v. Ford Motor Co., 628 N.W.2d 515 (Mich. 2001) (discrimination claim framework under ELCRA/PHWCRA context)
- Ross v. Campbell Soup Co., 237 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 2001) (pretext evidence and disability consideration in retaliation context)
- Verhoff v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 299 F. App’x 488 (6th Cir. 2008) (thinking as a major life activity discussion under ADA language)
- Head v. Glacier Northwest Inc., 413 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2005) (thinking as a major life activity in ADA context)
- Hill v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville, 54 F. App’x 199 (6th Cir. 2002) (thinking not a major life activity under pre-amended ADA)
- Barrett v. Kirtland Cmty. Coll., 628 N.W.2d 63 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001) (retaliation protected activity framework under Michigan law)